Todd Stern lived up to his name today when he arrived at the Copenhagen climate summit.

The first engagement for the  US special envoy for climate change, as soon as he stepped off the plane, was a press conference. He lost no time in taking a swing at China.

Mr Stern made it abundantly clear that the US did not believe China should receive aid to help it cut emissions, and that US taxpayers’ money would certainly not be forthcoming for the purpose.

“I do not envision public funds, certainly not from the US, going to China. We would intend to direct our public funds to the neediest countries,” he said.

FT Energy Source is posting a daily question for our panel of expert commentators. Below are responses from panel members Bjørn Lomborg, Kyoto Protocol carbon trading architect Graciela Chichilnisky, Robert Stavins of Harvard, Jeremy Leggett of Solarcentury, Vivienne Cox of Climate Change Capital, David Jones of Havas and Julian Morris of The International Policy Network.

Should sceptics be given a greater voice at the Copenhagen conference, given that recent polls, particularly in the US, show widespread doubts that climate change is manmade?

Robert Stavins: The key question is not whether particular views are represented at the Copenhagen conference and other climate negotiations, but whether access to the various events is made available to people with diverse views. In terms of the negotiating teams, the views of members are presumably representative of the respective governments, and there is – to put it mildly – a considerable diversity of perspectives across the negotiating teams, if not in regard to basic science, then surely in regard to issues of economics and policy.

By Andrew Ward

Developing countries have been complaining all week about rich countries conspiring against them as the two blocs spar over how to share the burden of tackling climate change. The developing world’s persecution complex will hardly have been helped by news that a senior Chinese delegate was barred from entering the conference venue three times in as many days.

“Yesterday, I was very unhappy. Today I am extremely unhappy,” said Su Wei, China’s top negotiator, explaining how an unnamed colleague had his registration badges confiscated by conference security. “This is something unacceptable. We have a saying in China… things can happen once or twice, but it should not be tolerated again.”

Two reports dominated yesterday’s news and are set to continue today: new temperature data, and the controversy over a draft Copenhagen agreement being circulated.

The hottest decade

Data from the UN’s World Meterological Organization and the UK’s Met Office that this decade will be the warmest on record, and 2009 looks likely to be the fifth-hottest year ever – and the absolute hottest in some parts of the world (FT). The Met Office data, perhaps ironically, was released in response to calls for greater transparency from sceptics (The Times). And it plans to release more data, plus its workings (WSJ).

Draft text triggers furore

The Guardian’s reports of a draft Copenhagen agreement that could disappoint developing countries was widely picked up, and the newspaper writes that the conference was ‘in disarray’ because of the draft. The G77′s current leader, Lumumba Stanislas Dia Ping, said it “threatened the success” of negotiations, but so far the most vocal critics are the NGOs, writes Fiona Harvey. The draft itself is not an official one, as UN climate chief Yvo de Boer stressed, and reports impose a lower per-person emissions limit on developing countries than on rich countries are simply not borne out by the document itself, Harvey writes.  More from the FT.

The more the spotlight falls upon this Danish text, the more like a Danish pastry it looks.

Here’s an assertion from Newsweek:

“Under the plan, by 2050 poor countries would have to limit per capita emissions at 1.44 tons, while rich countries would be given extra leeway at 2.67 tons per person.”

Really? Well, that would be absolutely shocking – if it bore any relation to the document.

So, where do those figures appear in the draft text?

Can you find them?

There has been plenty of hot air about the leak of the so-called “Danish draft” – the text of a potential communique that could form the basis of any statement from Copenhagen.

The text contains language on some of the issues that must be settled if the summit is to have an outcome.

But the text has been attacked as a “secret” document prepared by developed nations, which would damage the interests of poor countries.

First of all, let’s get things in perspective.